Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

[3arod13]

Changes the whole outlook about Bonds, asteriks, and future hall of fame, now that Clemens is in the mix. Everyone now is talking about McGwire going into the hall of fame next year because of the Mitchell Report.

Liked vs. hated...changes everything

I think when it's all said and done, we'll all move on realizing this is the way it was during that era. Don't like it either, but it will pass like many other things do.

As the young people say, "Don't hate the game...hate the player."

[dodgersfan]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

As the young people say, "Don't hate the game...hate the player



It should read "Don't hate the player...hate the game"


Rudy

[3arod13]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

As the young people say, "Don't hate the game...hate the player



It should read "Don't hate the player...hate the game"


Rudy

See, I just showed my age. Thanks for correct this old man!

[PudgePollyMillerFan]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

Good thing I just picked up some stock in the asterisk * market....looks like they will be hot items!

[whatupyos]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

AROD-

I hope the game gets back to a drug free state. I believe the game will mend in time. The thing that gets me is all the people who say "they cheated". Thats the opinion of a lot of people. Now wouldn't there have to be a rule in baseball saying NO STERIODS or PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS for it to be cheating. There was no rule!! I know there is a law, but if it meant that much to baseball...why on Gods green Earth was there no rule?? That gets me! Am I the only one who doesn't see it as cheating? Since there was no rule, that means, everyone in MLB could have done it if they had wanted to. It was even and free for all to participate should they have wanted too. I know I'd find a way to work around the rules of the game to get a leg up on competition. I'd follow the rules, but if there was no rule, then why not? Now, I'm not addressing you to discredit you or pick a fight, just because its your post did I address you, but I pose this question to everyone. For something to be cheating in the game of baseball there'd have to be a rule against it, which there wasn't.

Aaron

[cjclong]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

I'm hearing people on television saying they don't think Clemons will be voted into the Hall of Fame now. Both Bonds and Clemons had careers that probably would have entitled them to Hall of Fame status if they had stopped playing before any steroid accusations were made. How are players who had careers that would have put them in Hall without counting the years they were accused of using steroids to be treated?

[kingjammy24]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

"wouldn't there have to be a rule in baseball saying NO STERIODS or PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS for it to be cheating. There was no rule!! I know there is a law, but if it meant that much to baseball...why on Gods green Earth was there no rule??"

there was a rule. from 1991:

"The basic drug policy for the game is simply stated: There is no place for illegal drug use in Baseball. The use of illegal drugs by players, umpires, owners, front office, League or Commissioner's office personnel, trainers or anyone else involved in the game cannot be condoned or tolerated.....The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game...This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription".

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/format/memos20051109?memo=1991

how much more of a rule do you want? it's pretty clear, straight from the MLB commissioner, and even outlines the punishment.

rudy.

[David]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

Whatupyos, if players didn't think it was cheating and are shamed about the use, then why to players refuse to discuss their use back even when it wasn't against baseball's rules? That they refuse to talk it about shows that the players themselves consider it cheating and considered it cheating.

Using steroids has LONG been consider cheating by all athletes and fans, long before Ben Johnson was kicked out of the 1988 Olympics.

I don't need to refer to the cricket handbook to know that intentionally kicking your opponent in the nuts from behind during play when the referee isn't looking is cheating. I know nothing about cricket and know it's cheating.

As Mitchell said, using steroids is against the law, against baseball's rules (since 1991) and gives the user an unfair advantage over the majority of players who follow the law and rules. Spin it any way you want, but that's cheating.

[Tedw9]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

The drugs they were accused of doing were illegal. MLB didn't need a rule in place, the government already had one.

[David]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

I know that when I play cards with my 95 year old grandmother every Thursday, I refer to our rules and if they don't explicitly forbid marking the cards, intentionally miscounting when adding up the scores and looking at her cards when she's putting sugar in her tea, I use a marked deck, fake the score and look at her cards. Because as everyone who plays cards know, if using a marked deck, faking scores and looking at other people's cards isn't specifically written in the rules, it's not cheating. Sorry, Granny, fork over the yarn money, you lose again.

[TNTtoys]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

AROD-

I hope the game gets back to a drug free state. I believe the game will mend in time. The thing that gets me is all the people who say "they cheated". Thats the opinion of a lot of people. Now wouldn't there have to be a rule in baseball saying NO STERIODS or PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS for it to be cheating. There was no rule!! I know there is a law, but if it meant that much to baseball...why on Gods green Earth was there no rule?? That gets me! Am I the only one who doesn't see it as cheating? Since there was no rule, that means, everyone in MLB could have done it if they had wanted to. It was even and free for all to participate should they have wanted too. I know I'd find a way to work around the rules of the game to get a leg up on competition. I'd follow the rules, but if there was no rule, then why not? Now, I'm not addressing you to discredit you or pick a fight, just because its your post did I address you, but I pose this question to everyone. For something to be cheating in the game of baseball there'd have to be a rule against it, which there wasn't.

Aaron

Aaron

This is a common misconception -- just because there is no written rule, it is ok. I firmly believe that where there is a federal law prohibiting the sale and distribution (and of course the use) of these illegal substances, there is no need for a specific rule. I am sure that there are plenty of "laws of the state" that would apply to the game that are not in the written baseball bylaws... take for example Jose Offerman's outburst last year where he attacked an opposing player with a bat. I am sure assault and battery is not in the baseball code but it's against the law nevertheless (by the way, pun was intended on "battery" ) .

I do agree with you on one thing... the "cheater" comment. Can we call the batter who (after having taken HGH) hits a towering home run a "cheater"? What if the pitcher throwing to him was on something too? Do they cancel each other out? lol Now that we have the names of 86 "cheaters," are we done? Are there more out there that have cheated but just were smart enough to stay under the radar? Will there be more investigations? Will more names be made public later? Will some of the folks named give away others now (ala Mr. Grimsley)? I think we've come a long way, but we're not quite on a level playing field...

Are there any other forms of "cheating" that we're overlooking? What about corked bats? Or the type of cheating where a pitcher applies a foreign substance to the baseball before throwing a pitch? Gaylord Perry did it for years, admitted to "cheating", and look where he has ended up... in the hall of fame!!!

Nick

[TNTtoys]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

I'm hearing people on television saying they don't think Clemons will be voted into the Hall of Fame now. Both Bonds and Clemons had careers that probably would have entitled them to Hall of Fame status if they had stopped playing before any steroid accusations were made. How are players who had careers that would have put them in Hall without counting the years they were accused of using steroids to be treated?

Agree with the point that both players had Hall of Fame careers before they "turned to the dark side of the force." And so did Pete Rose...

But what the true issue is was talked about this morning on NY AM radio... Back in the 1930's, the hall of fame committee described 6 characteristics you should possess to be hall of fame worthy. The first 3 deal with stats, lifetime achievements, etc. We then get into the subective categories; two of which are character and integrity. If these players are denied the right to the hall of fame, they will fall into the same boat as the hit king. They cheated, they lied. They lack character; they lack integrity. Not that they were hall of fame worthy before they began breaking the laws.

[David]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

One other thing, if you enter certain pool halls and use 'techniques' because they are not explicitly forbidden by the opponents, you may well end up with your thumbs as they will consider them cheating. If you protest they might reply, "There was no rule against breaking your thumbs, either."

[whatupyos]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

Rudy-

I stand corrected. I was under the impression there was no written rule, but since there was, I guess there's no argument.

Aaron

[kingjammy24]

Re: Mitchell Report - Clemens * vs. Bonds *

Rudy-

I stand corrected. I was under the impression there was no written rule, but since there was, I guess there's no argument.

Aaron

aaron,

it's a common misconception that there were no rules against illegal drugs/steroids in baseball at the time. i'm not sure how it started but it seems to be an urban myth that's snowballed to the point where many people seem to believe it.

not only did fay vincent clearly outline MLB's stance but in 1997 bud selig reissued the same policy. what MLB didn't have at the time was simply a testing process. lack of a testing process however is not the same thing as a lack of rules.

interestingly enough, steve howe was suspended by MLB 7 times for drug use. in 1992, fay vincent banned howe for life. (howe being the second player banned for life for drug use, the first being fergie jenkins. both were eventually reinstated). in 1995, darryl strawberry was suspended by MLB for drug use. for people who say that baseball had no rules forbidding the use of illegal drugs, how on earth was it then that jenkins, howe and strawberry were suspended?

rudy.